OpenAI Faces Legal Challenges in India Over Copyright Infringement Claims

OpenAI Cites US Roots to Dodge Copyright Lawsuit in India

Details of legal rebuttals by OpenAI in other markets are not known OpenAI faces an uphill climb as it argues that Indian courts cannot hear lawsuits about its US-based business in the country, where Telegram has failed with similar defences and US technology firms have faced government heat on compliance. OpenAI, which counts India as its second biggest market with millions of users, is locked in an intense court battle triggered by domestic news agency ANI for alleged use of copyright content. The case gained prominence in recent weeks as book publishers and media groups, including those of billionaires Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani, banded together to oppose OpenAI in the case. OpenAI, which is facing new challenges from Chinese startup DeepSeek's breakthrough cheap AI computing, has maintained it builds its AI models using public information in line with fair use principles. The company faces similar copyright infringement lawsuits in US, Germany and Canada. Details of legal rebuttals by OpenAI in other markets are not known, but in New Delhi it is opposing ANI by saying in court filings its usage terms call for dispute resolution only in San Francisco, it is beyond the jurisdiction of Indian courts and it "does not maintain any servers or data centres" in the country. "It's a pre-Internet era argument which will not fly in Indian courts today," said Dharmendra Chatur, a partner at Poovayya & Co., which advises foreign tech companies. "Google, X, Facebook all perform services through their foreign companies and are party to litigation across India," Chatur added, explaining courts typically assess if a website is accessible and offers services to customers in India in deciding the point. OpenAI did not respond to Reuters queries for this article. Its lawyer in India, Amit Sibal, declined to comment, citing ongoing proceedings. Six other lawyers, and submissions of two court-appointed experts in the OpenAI lawsuit, Arul George Scaria and Adarsh Ramanujan, said Indian judges can hear the matter. "It is evident that OpenAI is making their interactive services available to the users in India," Scaria wrote in his Jan. 25 court submission, which has not been made public but was seen by Reuters. OpenAI's website shows it charges an 18% Indian tax on paid offerings and it said recently there was a "massive uptake of ChatGPT" in the critical market. In the OpenAI-ANI case, an outright win on the jurisdiction argument will mean OpenAI will not need to face the copyright lawsuit in India. If it loses that argument, it will have to contest ANI's demand for deletion of training data and pay $230,000 (roughly Rs. 2 crore) in damages. The Delhi court is set to hear the case next in February on the jurisdiction and other arguments. Asked about the lawsuit, Reuters, which holds a 26 percent interest in ANI, has said it is not involved in its business practices or operations. Foreign Defendant Batting for the power of Indian courts, lawyers and the court-appointed expert Scaria cited a 2022 decision involving Telegram as a legal precedent. An Indian author had sued Telegram for her leaked copyright works appearing on Telegram groups, but the company declined to share details saying it was governed by laws in Dubai, where it is based, and had servers outside India. Telegram disclosed the details after a Delhi judge ruled: "the conventional concepts of territoriality no longer exist ... (Telegram choosing) not to locate its servers in India cannot divest the Indian courts from dealing with copyright disputes." The court did not impose a penalty. OpenAI, however, argues there is 2009 court precedent in India that says merely because an app or webpage is accessible there does not mean judges can get jurisdiction "over a foreign defendant." Even if OpenAI's argument on jurisdiction fails to stop the lawsuit initially, an Indian intellectual property lawyer said it could later help the company make the point that a court order would need enforcement abroad. The lawyer declined to be named because of the matter's sensitivity. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is not party to the OpenAI lawsuit, it has had a love-hate relationship with Big Tech. India's IT minister in 2021 referred to US tech firms and said their "position that 'I will only be governed by laws of America' ... is plainly not acceptable." In the most bitter public faceoff that same year, Twitter, now X, declined to comply with orders to remove certain content and the government issued a press release, titled "Twitter needs to comply with the laws of the land". The company complied later but sued New Delhi. The case is ongoing. Even before Indian legal challenges mounted, OpenAI chief Sam Altman planned an India visit for February 5. An email shows two other senior executives, James Hairston and Srinivas Narayanan, also plan to be in India. "India is really important ... we've seen massive uptake of ChatGPT," OpenAI India executive, Pragya Misra, said last year. © Thomson Reuters 2025

OpenAI cites US roots to dodge India courts, but lawyers say case can be heard

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - OpenAI faces an uphill climb as it argues that Indian courts cannot hear lawsuits about its U.S.-based business in the country, where Telegram has failed with similar defences and U.S. technology firms have faced government heat on compliance. OpenAI, which counts India as its second biggest market with millions of users, is locked in an intense court battle triggered by domestic news agency ANI for alleged use of copyright content. The case gained prominence in recent weeks as book publishers and media groups, including those of billionaires Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani, banded together to oppose OpenAI in the case. OpenAI, which is facing new challenges from Chinese startup DeepSeek's breakthrough cheap AI computing, has maintained it builds its AI models using public information in line with fair use principles. The company faces similar copyright infringement lawsuits in U.S., Germany and Canada. Details of legal rebuttals by OpenAI in other markets are not known, but in New Delhi it is opposing ANI by saying in court filings its usage terms call for dispute resolution only in San Francisco, it is beyond the jurisdiction of Indian courts and it "does not maintain any servers or data centres" in the country. "It's a pre-Internet era argument which will not fly in Indian courts today," said Dharmendra Chatur, a partner at Poovayya & Co., which advises foreign tech companies. "Google, X, Facebook all perform services through their foreign companies and are party to litigation across India," Chatur added, explaining courts typically assess if a website is accessible and offers services to customers in India in deciding the point. OpenAI did not respond to Reuters queries for this article. Its lawyer in India, Amit Sibal, declined to comment, citing ongoing proceedings. Six other lawyers, and submissions of two court-appointed experts in the OpenAI lawsuit, Arul George Scaria and Adarsh Ramanujan, said Indian judges can hear the matter. "It is evident that OpenAI is making their interactive services available to the users in India," Scaria wrote in his Jan. 25 court submission, which has not been made public but was seen by Reuters. OpenAI's website shows it charges an 18% Indian tax on paid offerings and it said recently there was a "massive uptake of ChatGPT" in the critical market. In the OpenAI-ANI case, an outright win on the jurisdiction argument will mean OpenAI will not need to face the copyright lawsuit in India. If it loses that argument, it will have to contest ANI's demand for deletion of training data and pay $230,000 in damages. The Delhi court is set to hear the case next in February on the jurisdiction and other arguments. Asked about the lawsuit, Reuters, which holds a 26% interest in ANI, has said it is not involved in its business practices or operations. "FOREIGN DEFENDANT" Batting for the power of Indian courts, lawyers and the court-appointed expert Scaria cited a 2022 decision involving Telegram as a legal precedent. An Indian author had sued Telegram for her leaked copyright works appearing on Telegram groups, but the company declined to share details saying it was governed by laws in Dubai, where it is based, and had servers outside India. Telegram disclosed the details after a Delhi judge ruled: "the conventional concepts of territoriality no longer exist ... (Telegram choosing) not to locate its servers in India cannot divest the Indian courts from dealing with copyright disputes." The court did not impose a penalty. OpenAI, however, argues there is 2009 court precedent in India that says merely because an app or webpage is accessible there does not mean judges can get jurisdiction "over a foreign defendant." Even if OpenAI's argument on jurisdiction fails to stop the lawsuit initially, an Indian intellectual property lawyer said it could later help the company make the point that a court order would need enforcement abroad. The lawyer declined to be named because of the matter's sensitivity. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is not party to the OpenAI lawsuit, it has had a love-hate relationship with Big Tech. India's IT minister in 2021 referred to U.S. tech firms and said their "position that 'I will only be governed by laws of America' ... is plainly not acceptable." In the most bitter public faceoff that same year, Twitter, now X, declined to comply with orders to remove certain content and the government issued a press release, titled "Twitter needs to comply with the laws of the land". The company complied later but sued New Delhi. The case is ongoing. Even before Indian legal challenges mounted, OpenAI chief Sam Altman planned an India visit for Feb. 5. An email shows two other senior executives, James Hairston and Srinivas Narayanan, also plan to be in India. "India is really important ... we've seen massive uptake of ChatGPT," OpenAI India executive, Pragya Misra, said last year. (Reporting by Aditya Kalra; Editing by Kim Coghill) By Arpan Chaturvedi, Aditya Kalra and Munsif Vengattil

OpenAI urges Delhi court to dismiss book publishers' copyright plea

This story incorporates reporting from Live Law, inc42 and EconoTimes. OpenAI has filed a motion in an Indian court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a coalition of book publishers. The publishers accuse the artificial intelligence company of violating copyright laws through its AI service, ChatGPT. The Delhi High Court is handling the case, which involves claims that ChatGPT reproduces book summaries and extracts from unlicensed copies, consequently impacting publishers' business operations. OpenAI, however, argues that its use of data falls within the realm of fair use, utilizing publicly available information to generate responses. According to recent court documents filed on Jan. 26, OpenAI argues that the publishers have not substantiated claims that ChatGPT relies on or uses original literary works to produce content. Instead, OpenAI states that its technology draws from existing resources on the internet that are already in the public domain. The AI firm emphasizes its adherence to fair use principles, arguing that there is no infringement involved in the operations of ChatGPT. The Federation of Indian Publishers, which includes major global players like Penguin Random House and Bloomsbury, is spearheading the legal challenge against OpenAI. The lawsuit is part of broader global tensions where various parties -- including authors, media outlets, and musicians -- are alleging that AI technology providers use their work without appropriate permissions or licensing agreements. OpenAI's legal challenges extend beyond the book publishing industry. News agency Asian News International (ANI) has also brought a similar lawsuit against OpenAI, asserting that ChatGPT verbatim reproduces its original news content. The Delhi High Court in a separate adjudication urged restraint from media in reporting details of the submissions made by the parties involved in this case. OpenAI has presented that these cases revolve around similar issues concerning the use of public data and insists on a need for clarity on what is considered fair use in the context of AI technologies. The Federation of Indian Publishers previously filed an intervention application to support the aforementioned cases. However, OpenAI's legal representative, Sibal, has opposed this intervention, pointing out procedural flaws, including the Federation's failure to provide the necessary authorization for filing. Despite these legal hurdles, the publishers remain adamant about pursuing their claims, underscoring the potential ramifications on their business models due to emerging AI technologies. The broader context of these legal proceedings indicates a growing conflict between traditional content creators and digital technology firms over copyright interpretations. The debate has significant implications for how intellectual property laws would adapt to integrate advancements in AI and digital information dissemination. As the Delhi High Court proceedings evolve, the outcomes could set precedents not only for similar future litigations in India but also for global discussions on the intersection of AI and copyright laws. The results of these cases may influence whether AI firms could continue using vast datasets available online under the pretext of fair use or if stricter regulations and licensing would need enforcement. The industry closely observes intelligence in the decision, awaiting direction on balancing innovation with intellectual property rights.

OpenAI Opposes Inclusion of Publishers In ANI Copyright Lawsuit - MEDIANAMA

Disclaimer: This content generated by AI & may have errors or hallucinations. Edit before use. Read our Terms of use OpenAI opposed the inclusion of the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) as plaintiffs in the ongoing copyright lawsuit between OpenAI and Asian News International (ANI). The AI company argued that since the Federation had no copyright claims by itself, it had no stake in the matter. It also claimed that the Federation had no authorisation to act as representatives of the Indian publishing industry. However, the judge pointed out that it was better to hear from a single body than individual members filing separate suits. OpenAI's lawyer Amit Sibal also argued that the questions raised by the Federation were substantially different from those raised by ANI in their suit. Sibal pointed out that while ANI alleged that OpenAI had trained its models on publicly available copyrighted material, the Federation claimed that OpenAI had used original literary works published by its members. "They are alleging that we go behind paywalls. That is not publicly available work. Of course, we don't do it and that's not a question that the plaintiff [ANI] is raising," said Sibal. He also raised similar objections to the DNPA's claims. Both the DNPA and the Federation of Indian Publishers recently filed applications before the Court, seeking to appear as plaintiffs alongside ANI, claiming that the case affected copyright owners across different industries. News agency ANI sued OpenAI for copyright infringement last year, alleging that the ChatGPT creator used its original news content in an unauthorised way to train its AI models. They also alleged that ChatGPT was capable of producing ANI's content verbatim in response to user queries and often attributed events and statements that never happened to the news agency. The Federation stated that as one of the most prominent representative bodies of the Indian publishing industry, it had a "real and substantial interest in the legal questions raised in the case." Pranav Gupta, the Federation's General Secretary, stated that Generative AI companies exploit the intellectual and creative work of authors without seeking permission or acknowledgement and offering zero compensation. In its intervention application, the Federation claimed that ChatGPT was able to summarise entire books as well as explain their key concepts. It was also able to generate detailed reviews and analyses of the books, which could draw from copyrighted content. In a similar vein, the DNPA stated that the outcome of this case would have widespread consequences for the livelihoods of journalists as well as the broader Indian news industry. Anant Goenka, Executive Director of the Indian Express Group and a member of the DNPA, added that while OpenAI had struck multiple licensing agreements with foreign news organisations, they had yet to do so in India. Amit Sibal also repeated an argument that he had made in previous hearings, namely that the Delhi High Court did not have the jurisdiction to rule in this case. He cited section 62(1) and section 1 of the Copyright Act to argue that the infringement must arise in the territory of India. However, the alleged training of AI models occurred outside of India, where OpenAI's servers were also located. Therefore, since the alleged infringement had occurred outside of India, no Indian court had any jurisdiction Secondly, Sibal attacked the disputes ANI had raised about ChatGPT responses containing both copyrighted material and misinformation. He pointed to OpenAI's terms of use, which state that any dispute arising from model responses goes to mandatory arbitration or in the exclusive jurisdiction of California courts. However, the opposing lawyers asked the court to hear the jurisdictional arguments "holistically." The judge assured them that he would not deal with jurisdiction as a preliminary issue but hear them alongside counterarguments. The Delhi High Court criticised the Digital News Publisher Association (DNPA) and the Federation of Indian Publishers for speaking to the press about their intervention applications in the ongoing copyright lawsuit between OpenAI and Asian News International (ANI). "Just because you're in the business of publishing news, everything can't be reported," said Judge Amit Bansal. He also pointed out that they were not yet a party to the case, even though news reports stated that they had filed a lawsuit. OpenAI had alleged before the court that they had learned of the Federation's intervention application only from the press and that their subsequent reply had also been reported on. "The reliefs are being pursued in two courts, this court and the public courts" said Amit Sibal, representing OpenAI. However, the DNPA stated that the "maelstrom" of reporting came from other news publishers. The judge asked for there to be no more "unnecessary reporting" on the submissions made by parties. The court had previously appointed two Amici Curiae or special advisors to assist the court with the novel issues in this case. The two advisors, advocate Adarsh Ramanujan and Professor Arul George Scaria had previously outlined four issues that the court needed to contend with: When asked by the court, both Amici Curiae stated that they felt these four issues broadly summarised the case accurately. Based on their comments, the judge also asked the plaintiff and the two applicants to ensure that there was no duplication of arguments in their submissions. "In the event the court allows the intervention application, the scope of the suit shall not be expanded and the interveners would be confined to make submissions on the legal issues arising in the present place," said the Judge.

News publishers in India accuse OpenAI of scraping copyrighted content

The news websites are allegedly being scrapped to create and reproduce content for ChatGPT users. Major Indian news publishers, including Gautam Adani's NDTV and Mukesh Ambani's Network18, have joined forces with other outlets like the Indian Express and Hindustan Times to take legal action against OpenAI. The publishers allege that OpenAI improperly used their copyrighted content to train its AI models without obtaining permission or offering payment. This case is part of a growing global trend where authors, musicians, and news organisations are accusing technology companies of using their copyrighted work without authorisation. The Indian media outlets have filed their claims in a New Delhi court, expressing concerns that their news websites are being scrapped to create and reproduce content for ChatGPT users. Also read: OpenAI faces legal heat in India. here's why India is a critical market for OpenAI, with over 690 million smartphone users benefiting from affordable mobile data plans. The lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, highlights the escalating legal challenges against OpenAI in the country. Last year, ANI, a prominent local news agency, became the first to file a lawsuit against the company. Since then, both global and Indian book publishers have joined the legal battle. The case filing, reviewed by Reuters but not made public, spans 135 pages. It argues that OpenAI's actions pose "a clear and present danger to the valuable copyrights" of members of the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) and other outlets. The document accuses OpenAI of "willful scraping" and "adaptation of content." Also read: Accident or cover-up? OpenAI allegedly deletes potential evidence in copyright case The DNPA, representing about 20 companies, includes major players like Dainik Bhaskar, Zee News, India Today Group, and The Hindu. Interestingly, the Times of India, despite being a DNPA member, has not joined the lawsuit, though the reasons remain unclear. The ongoing legal disputes highlight growing tensions between tech companies and content creators over the use of copyrighted material.